Member of the Month

partyandBS
December, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Back to skiing, need ski advice

profile picture
Non_State_Actor
Posts: 4956 - Karma: 17,723
Hello all, I've been lurking on this forum for a bit and just registered to post my "what ski should I get thread" so here is my particular scenario:
5' 7" 140lbs
aggressive skier though out of practice
Looking for new or used setup mostly for all mountain around Lake Tahoe primarily. I got back into skiing after boarding for 15 years primarily to teach my kids how to ski and have enjoyed it thoroughly for the last 3 seasons, not many days, mostly spent with a toddler between my legs or skiing backwards or slowly down the bunny hill, on a pair of craigslist special Salomon X-Wing Storm 170's. Last year had a few good runs on top of Bachelor whilst the kids were in lessons and had a blast.

Looking for something around 160-166 all mountain shredder with park potential, not serious park duty. I like a very lightweight setup.

Skis I am considering or drawn towards include:
Blizzard Brahma-reasonable weight, reasonable cost, good reviews, not playful enough
Line supernatural-
Lib Tech Wreckreate- extreme lightweight, checks most of my boxes, no local Lib Tech shop to deal with the weird edges (in the SF Bay Area WTF?)
Icelantic nomad 95- look great, are expensive and the 163 doesn't seem to be available
and of course...
Armada ARV 84, 86, 96 which is probably the answer but which one? Is the 84 or 86 too narrow? I know the 84 is technically a kids ski but the make them to 170 iirc and I'm not a big guy, hell I'm not opposed to riding a women's ski if the graphics were fairly neutral, most are definitely light weight.

What else should I be looking at?

Thanks for your help!
Aug 21 2017 2:44AM
4 0
profile picture
-eREKTion-
Posts: 1630 - Karma: 10,947
Alright, the first two skis you mentioned are great but directional. If having the ability to take some park laps is important then neither ski is for you. That said directional skis are going to be a lot more stable and chargey than symmetrical shapes. I have no experience with Lib and Icelantic skis but I think your characterizations work; Icelantic's are expensive and Lib's are weird. I think you're spot on with the ARV. The ARV 96 would be absolutely perfect for what you're looking for.
Aug 21 2017 3:20AM
2 0
profile picture
Non_State_Actor
Posts: 4956 - Karma: 17,723
My only concern with the ARV 96 would be weight. I can't find the exact figure for the 163 but the 177 is 1968g and the 184 is 2099g. Does anyone have the figure for the 163?

The weight, and price honestly, make me look hard at the ARV 86 and the 84. Are they both pretty much just park skis and not very suitable for all around duty? I know the powder performance would obviously be lacking.
Aug 21 2017 11:33PM
0 0
profile picture
Deepskier
Posts: 3267 - Karma: 4,832
The ARV 86 probably fits that best.
Aug 22 2017 12:38AM
0 0
profile picture
Greg_K
Posts: 956 - Karma: 2,759
Would agree with other posters here that the ARV Armada skis would be the best fit of the ones listed. If you are mostly skiing groomers, than the AVR 86 would be a good choice or if you plan on skiing more off trail, the AVR 96. The AVR96 would be about 1700 grams in the 164 length would isn't too bad. Put Attack 13 bindings on any of these skis to save about a pound per pair over most 12/13 Din bindings and you can get last years model of that binding for $120 a pair!

Another ski to consider would be the Armada El Rey which has been discountined/replaced by the AVR series last year but it is similar to AVR 84/86 but with a wider tip/tail and geared towards more all mountain use but the ability to go into the park. It is very light and durable as it is a full cap construction ski so it's priced cheaper than the AVR series. Lots of them to be found new online in the 171cm or 164cm size for deals. I own a pair of older ones for my "hard snow" skis and got them used in mint shape for $80 this Spring.

Know ASOgear.com still has some Head Framewall skis with Attack 13 bindings in the 171cm size(which I would recommend for your size) for $249.99 which is an insane deal! About 1600 grams each and the bindings are 1950 grams for a pair with brakes and 84mm underfoot. A bit stiffer than the AVR series Armada, so better on hard pack but not as playful.

Good luck!
Aug 22 2017 10:42AM
1 0
profile picture
Greg_K
Posts: 956 - Karma: 2,759
Just did a quick search and Backcountry.com has the 2016 164cm Armada El Rey selling brand new for $239.99pr with free shipping.
Aug 22 2017 10:59AM
0 0
profile picture
SofaKingSick
Posts: 9399 - Karma: 62,022
youre getting some great suggestions in here, id say go with one of those and stick Tyrolia Attacks on them (great binding and light) and be done with it!
Aug 22 2017 5:15PM
0 0
profile picture
Non_State_Actor
Posts: 4956 - Karma: 17,723
Thanks everyone for the input. With the Armada ARV 96 163 coming in around 1700g I think I'll be happy with the weight and versatility.

Also thanks for the suggestion on the attack 13, the reviews on those are fantastic and I had been leaning towards marker and have always liked look. Reading more about marker it seems the lightweight units have pretty poor durability/reliability. Is the Attack 11 too much of a compromise performance-wise to justify the weight savings? 710g difference.

Again, the advice is very much appreciated, thanks to all those that have chimed in and to the great resource this forum provides. My whole family is stoked to get skiing and it's still August.
Aug 22 2017 5:51PM
1 0
profile picture
SofaKingSick
Posts: 9399 - Karma: 62,022
mystery3Thanks everyone for the input. With the Armada ARV 96 163 coming in around 1700g I think I'll be happy with the weight and versatility.

Also thanks for the suggestion on the attack 13, the reviews on those are fantastic and I had been leaning towards marker and have always liked look. Reading more about marker it seems the lightweight units have pretty poor durability/reliability. Is the Attack 11 too much of a compromise performance-wise to justify the weight savings? 710g difference.

Again, the advice is very much appreciated, thanks to all those that have chimed in and to the great resource this forum provides. My whole family is stoked to get skiing and it's still August.


i was just wondering myself if the construction is at all different between attack 11 and 13. if it is not, then you should def do the 11s unless youre approaching 11 for DIN, which i really doubt

i generally dislike markers so im biased but i think it's fair to say that yes, their lower end ones get a lot of complaints

i think the setup you chose sounds perfect
Aug 22 2017 6:00PM
1 0
profile picture
Greg_K
Posts: 956 - Karma: 2,759
Stick with the Attack 13 and avoid the Attack 11 unless you are a light weight beginner skier. The difference in weight between the 2 is not that significant as you will see as some weight listings that will list without brakes etc. Attack 13s are 1/2-1 lb lighter than comparable Solomon or Look yet provide great performance.

The issue with the Attack 11 vs the 13 is that it uses weaker Spring(limits weight versatility), less robust parts but the big issue is that the ramp angle on it is large. The ramp angle is the difference in height between the platforms where the boot rests on the back of the binding compared to the front. The Attack 11 is much higher on the back to "force" the boot/skier to lean more forward which is a good idea for beginners not used to skiing but gives the feeling of "I'm falling backseat" to those more used to skiing. The smaller the boot, the bigger than angle forward as well.

I had a pair of older tyrolia bindings that had a ramp angle like the 11s and always felt out of balance on those skis compared to my other skis. Switched to Attack 13 and it's like it's a different ski! Have 4 pairs of skis with Attack 13s now as they are so great. When you can get the Attack 13s from $120, it makes no sense to grab the 11.
Aug 22 2017 6:35PM
1 0
profile picture
Non_State_Actor
Posts: 4956 - Karma: 17,723
I guess we're done here then. thanks for the info on the ramp angle, otherwise the 11 is a very similar design in all plastic to shed weight and cost presumably.

I'd have to put on a lot of weight to need a din over 11 and I'm working to avoid that as I get old.
Aug 22 2017 7:08PM
1 0
profile picture
Greg_K
Posts: 956 - Karma: 2,759
Yes, similar design but better, beefier parts in the Attack 13 that you would notice a performance difference over the 11 at any DIN level. Is such a thing as "too light" I find in some gear as it gets bucked around more in rough terrain etc.
Attack 13 are perfect comprise in great binding that's light but not too light.

Attack 16's have more metal than the 13 and are as noticeably heavier. Those I'd only recommend to heavier skiers that are harder on their gear.
Aug 22 2017 7:39PM
0 0
profile picture
SofaKingSick
Posts: 9399 - Karma: 62,022
Greg_KYes, similar design but better, beefier parts in the Attack 13 that you would notice a performance difference over the 11 at any DIN level. Is such a thing as "too light" I find in some gear as it gets bucked around more in rough terrain etc.
Attack 13 are perfect comprise in great binding that's light but not too light.

Attack 16's have more metal than the 13 and are as noticeably heavier. Those I'd only recommend to heavier skiers that are harder on their gear.


Thanks for all the info, I read the 11 vs 13 part and was going to ask if the 16 had more metal than the 13. Cheers man
Aug 22 2017 9:32PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)